Is elohiym an idiot?

[Nathon Detroit]

You are wrong, Knight.

1John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Only if you divorce eternal life from being Christian.

You are in the wrong dispensation.

We are no longer under the law (1st John) we are under the dispensation of uncircumcision (sometimes called grace). And because you do not rightly divide the word of truth you have a disaster for a theology.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

elohiym, do you believe there is liberty in Christ?

 

[PKevman]

And yet another sound Biblical refutation of Elo's theology is completely ignored. I will post it again for you:

Elo: "Says who?" Says literally THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of scholars who know Hebrew inside and out. Here are a few of their translations:

NIV
7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

NAS
7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity;I am the LORD who does all these.

Amplified
7I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

NKJV
7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

FURTHER, the verse IN THE CONTEXT of isaiah 45 supports this translation completely! Knight's commentary on it was spot on and entirely Biblical! Yours is not!

 

[elected4ever]

No, in trying to mock you, I succeeded in mocking you, while getting readers here to ask themselves, "how can Knight believe such a thing?"

It's so shocking that now you are forced to try and explain yourself to save face, but your response only shows that you agree with what I posted.
Therefore, you believe that a Christian doesn't need to ask forgiveness for sin.
He warns them because if they sin, they make themselves transgressors (Gal 2:17). Paul agrees with Jesus that whoever sins is a servant of sin (John 8:34; Rom 6:19). Your argument is unbiblical and weak. Try again.
Liberty does not mean a license to sin. And you appear to ignore the "through love serve one another" part.

Elohiym, you seem to be applying law to the physical body which is the same error that Knight makes. You are like two peas in a pod. Each of you think that you can control that death which is the person of every man born of Adam. We are not reborn in the flesh that we should be the righteousness of God in the flesh. We are spiritual beings born of God in the Spirit. It is the spirit that suffers at the hands of dead men. It is the Spirit that lives and not our mortal flesh. Each of you seem to be saying that it is our mortal flesh that must be righteous. In fact you indicate that our mortal flesh can be righteous. A doctrine that I summarily reject and detest.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

To those reading..... and in case you missed it.....

elohiym thinks that any person that does something sinful (i.e., steals, lusts etc.) cannot be a Christian, to be a Christian one must be perfect. Which of course also means that elohiym believes he does none of these things, he is perfect. :freak:

 

[Stripe]

I believe 1 John 3 (Amplified Bible) might help:

6 No one who abides in Him [who lives and remains in communion with and in obedience to Him--deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] commits (practices) sin. No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him [recognized, perceived, or understood Him, or has had an experiential acquaintance with Him].

 

[Nathon Detroit]

elohiym, do you believe there is liberty in Christ?

 

[Stripe]

To those reading..... and in case you missed it.....elohiym thinks that any person that does something sinful (i.e., steals, lusts etc.) cannot be a Christian, to be a Christian one must be perfect. Which of course also means that elohiym believes he does none of these things, he is perfect. :freak:

He's a perfect moron. Does that help?

 

[elected4ever]

To those reading..... and in case you missed it..... elohiym thinks that any person that does something sinful (i.e., steals, lusts etc.) cannot be a Christian, to be a Christian one must be perfect. Which of course also means that elohiym believes he does none of these things, he is perfect. :freak:

Well, your no better in that you ascribe sin to the children because you still think we are subject to sinful flesh. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.:rotfl:

 

[MrRadish]

"Is elohiym a idiot" :chuckle:

 

[elected4ever]

I believe 1 John 3 (Amplified Bible) might help:

6 No one who abides in Him [who lives and remains in communion with and in obedience to Him--deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] commits (practices) sin. No one who [habitually] sins has either seen or known Him [recognized, perceived, or understood Him, or has had an experiential acquaintance with Him].

The notations in the Amplified bible, deliberately, knowingly, and habitually are in error. It is an emphatic statement and does not need modifiers

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abides in him sins not: whosoever sins hath not seen him, neither known him.:yawn:

 

[Clete]

He sins, if in fact he does, because he has no free will to do otherwise. if he has no free will to do otherwise then he is not of God. If knight is righteous as Jesus is righteous then it is because he has no free will to do otherwise and is therefore of God.

If so both sin and righteousness are completely without meaning and God is unjust.

You're just as big an idiot and eloy.

 

[elected4ever]

If so both sin and righteousness are completely without meaning and God is unjust.

You're just as big an idiot and eloy.

If I respond in kind your keeper will ban me again

 

[Clete]

If I respond in kind your keeper will ban me again

Liar

 

[Stripe]

The notations in the Amplified bible, deliberately, knowingly, and habitually are in error. It is an emphatic statement and does not need modifiers. 1 John 3:6 Whosoever abides in him sins not: whosoever sins hath not seen him, neither known him.:yawn:

OK. What about all the other versions that make similar concessions?

 

[Stripe]

If I respond in kind your keeper will ban me again

That's because clete isn't saying dumb things.

 

[Clete]

The notations in the Amplified bible, deliberately, knowingly, and habitually are in error.

Not really. The notations are based on the word "meno" which is translated "abides".

1) to remain, abide

a) in reference to place

1) to sojourn, tarry

2) not to depart

a) to continue to be present

b) to be held, kept, continually​

​

b) in reference to time

1) to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure

a) of persons, to survive, live​

c) in reference to state or condition

1) to remain as one, not to become another or different​

2) to wait for, await one​

The definition of this term sets the context for the use of the term sin in the second half of the verse. The notations made by the Amplified Bible (a poor translation by the way) are not in error, which is obvious even from the English unless you've brought along a theological axe to grind.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Liar

Why not, she did it last time. she will do it again. Your her pet!

 

[Clete]

Why not, she did it last time. she will do it again. Your her pet!

Her pet? Who are you talking about, Polly? I thought we were talking about Knight! You think I'm Polly's pet?!
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:



If anyone ever gets banned for calling someone else an idiot it will be only because they've done so (usually repeatedly) without cause. It would therefore be impossible for either of two things to happen...

1. Someone getting banned for calling you an idiot.
2. You not getting banned for calling someone else an idiot.

 

[elected4ever]

Not really. The notations are based on the word "meno" which is translated "abides".

1) to remain, abide

a) in reference to place

1) to sojourn, tarry

2) not to depart

a) to continue to be present

b) to be held, kept, continually​

​

b) in reference to time

1) to continue to be, not to perish, to last, endure

a) of persons, to survive, live​

c) in reference to state or condition

1) to remain as one, not to become another or different​

2) to wait for, await one​

The definition of this term sets the context for the use of the term sin in the second half of the verse. The notations made by the Amplified Bible (a poor translation by the way) are not in error, which is obvious even from the English unless you've brought along a theological axe to grind.

Resting in Him,
Clete

For the sake of argument lets say your right. Is a habit learned or is it something that occurs as a result of the nature of a thing? Does a habit have to be a learned response?